Making the desert bloom

Posted on 06/10/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Science fiction fans will remember the dew collectors in the novel Dune. They’re not science fiction in Israel.

A new Israeli company Tal-Ya Water Technologies, which launched in May, promises to squeeze dew from the air for watering crops where water resources are precious or scarce. This new invention has a number of ecological benefits that go beyond simple water savings.

For about $1 a piece, per plant, a square serrated tray made from a special plastic composite sits directly on the ground. The reusable tray is fitted with a hole in the center for a plant to grow. Using non-PET recycled and recyclable plastic with UV filters, and a limestone additive, Tal-Ya’s trays do not degrade in the sun or after the application of pesticides or fertilizers.

[…] Field tests in Israel with the Ministry of Agriculture suggests whopping water savings of up to 50 percent of irrigated water by using the Tal-Ya system.

Compare this story to the story of what the Palestinians did to Israeli greenhouses left behind in Gaza. As always, it’s creation vs. destruction, and yet, the media gets it backward.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Making the desert bloom

The morning after the morning after three years later

Posted on 06/10/2009 by Soccerdad

Snoopy noted a Bradley Burston column in the wake of Israel’s war with Hezbollah in 2006 in which Burston wrote (the link to Ha’aretz has expired):

When this war is over and Israel’s troops are gone from Lebanon, and when the rage at Israel begins to subside, it will be Nasrallah’s turn – like Nasser’s four decades ago – to answer to fellow Arabs for his actions.

I was dismissive, as it appeared that Hezbollah had no intention of keeping its side of the deal – and it didn’t. I was also dismissive because Thomas Friedman had made a very similar point in “The morning after the morning after.”

On the morning after the morning after, Lebanese war refugees, who had real jobs and homes, will start streaming back by the hundreds of thousands, many of them Shiites. Tragically, they will find their homes or businesses badly damaged or obliterated. Yes, they will curse Israel. But they and other Arabs will also start asking Nasrallah publicly what many are already asking privately:

“What was this war all about? What did we get from this and at what price? Israel has some roofs to repair and some dead to bury. But its economy and state are fully intact, and it will recover quickly. We Lebanese have been set back by a decade. Our economy and our democracy lie in ruins, like our homes. For what? For a one-week boost in ‘Arab honor?’ So that Iran could distract the world’s attention from its nuclear program? You did all this to us for another country?”

(Not a surprising sentiment since Hezbollah wasn’t founded to fight Israel as much as it was to create an Islamic state in Lebanon.)

Frankly, I thought that Friedman was trying to be too cute, but he seems to be somewhat on target in this case. As the Washington Post reported the other day.

But the events of the past few years, voters said, made the campaign a broad referendum on Hezbollah. The group’s militia in 2008 briefly seized control of downtown Beirut in a bid to boost Hezbollah’s political power, a move reminiscent of the country’s 15-year civil war. And Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel was cited by some voters as showing the danger of allowing the group to keep its arms stockpiles.

What are some of the other factors leading to Hezbollah’s defeat? Now, Thomas Friedman even gives some credit to ex-President Bush.

While the Lebanese deserve 95 percent of the credit for this election, 5 percent goes to two U.S. presidents. As more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 — and forcing them to get out of Lebanon after the Hariri killing — this free election would not have happened. Mr. Bush helped create the space. Power matters. Mr. Obama helped stir the hope. Words also matter.

“People in this region have become so jaded by the ability of their states to dominate everything and hold sham elections,” said Paul Salem, analyst of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “And mostly the world never cared. And then here came this man [Obama], who came to them with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and dignity and economic progress and education, and this person indicated that this little prison that people are living in here was not the whole world. That change was possible.”

As I mentioned before I wonder if President Obama’s speech spurred Christians to vote in greater numbers, realizing that he was reaching out too much to the likes of Hezbollah. (I was happy to see that Michael Ledeen feels the same way.

My thinking is more along the lines of the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

This being Lebanon, talks on building a governing coalition are bound to be difficult. But in the bigger picture, this election marks a step forward since the 2005 Cedar Revolution ended the Syrian occupation. And it’s a vindication of America’s policy of democracy promotion. In Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq and now Lebanon, extremist Muslim parties didn’t fare as well as feared at reasonably free polls, and often lost ground. The outcome in Lebanon is another good reason for the Obama Administration to make democracy a priority of its so-called new relationship with the Muslim world — even if George W. Bush also happened to think it was a good idea.

Democracy promotion was decidedly not a part of President Obama’s Cairo speech.

The usually frivolous Dion Nissenbaum recalls another incident that may have hurt Hezbollah.

At the end of the day, in the battle between the pro-Western March 14 coalition and the Iran-backed March 8 rivals, the date that may have mattered more was May 7th.

That was the day last year when Hezbollah fighters easily stormed through West Beirut in a military takeover that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah later called “a glorious day.”

What Nasrallah touted as a great day many Lebanese voters saw as a betrayal.

While Sunday’s election doesn’t signal an end to the Hezbollah threat, it is a welcome development.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Lebanon | Tagged | Comments Off on The morning after the morning after three years later

Dhimmitude on display

Posted on 06/10/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Iranian Jews are the finest example of how Jews were treated in Muslim nations during the good old days of the Caliphate.

Witness:

Besides their support, Mutai stressed that “ever since the revolution, the Jewish community has tried very hard not to publicly intervene in election propaganda and to keep clear of the political establishment, since the race between the four candidates has entered a circle of actual physical violence and street fights between supporters of Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. They do not participate in support rallies and certainly do not organize any.”

Professor David Menashri, Director of Tel Aviv University’s Center for Iranian Studies said he also believed that the Jewish votes in Iran are reserved for Ahmadinejad. “The Jews in Iran usually follow the ruling stream in everything to do with internal political power struggles and keep a low profile. They will stay quiet and immediately support whoever wins,” he said.

How can that be? I thought that Jews are cherished and protected under the Iranians—it’s only the Zionists that are despised, is it not?

Not. And this is why:

“The votes are allegedly secret, but in hindsight are not so secret. So the Jews plan to ensure they are on the winning side. In any case, they have no problem supporting whoever is elected,” Ezri said.

They have to support whoever is elected. The Jews of Iran are an endangered species, just as the Jews of the Arab world are pretty much gone from those nations. Yemen is currently the best examples of how Muslims treat The People of the Book. For more examples of that, go look for Christians in Saudi Arabia. You won’t find any publicly practicing their religion, because that’s illegal. Filipinos are regularly arrested for holding private worship services in their homes. Obama has an interesting take on this lack of tolerance.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Yes, the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality exist, but not so much under Islam.

Posted in Iran, Jews | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Dennis the pro-Israel menace

Posted on 06/10/2009 by Soccerdad

The Washington Post focuses on the diplomat in charge of running policy on Iran, with a feature titled: Dennis Ross Faces Big Task on Iran Policy, Including Overcoming Pro-Israel Label. Now this isn’t the actual title in the print edition, but if you view the report in a browser, this is the title that appears at the top. It is also a fair description of the content of the article.

The Washington Post, in contrast, didn’t ever portray Chaz Freeman as pro-Saudi or pro-Chinese. We did have this description of Freeman’s activities in the Post:

Since 1997, he has presided over the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money. In that role, Freeman has occasionally criticized the Israeli government’s positions and U.S. support for those policies. In 2007, for example, he said, “The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending,” adding, “American identification with Israel has become total.”

Here’s a comparable paragraph in today’s story about Ross.

Before joining the Obama administration, Ross co-founded a not-for-profit group called United Against Nuclear Iran, whose executive director is Mark Wallace, a Bush administration official. Wallace said the group grew out of discussions with Holbrooke and former CIA director R. James Woolsey about how to achieve bipartisan consensus on the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. Wallace declined to reveal the contributors to the group’s $2 million budget last year, but two people familiar with the organization said many are pro-Israel advocates.

“Funded in part by Saudi money” is a lot less specific than “$2 million budget.” But a sinister element is added by noting that one of the principals wouldn’t reveal his organization’s donors. Did anyone specifically ask Freeman how much of MEPC’s money came from the Kingdom? Was the reporter even curious?

The report about Ross’s group is followed up by this:

Ross has “a lot of baggage from the past, but his portfolio is different in his new role so it may not matter,” said one Arab diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing personalities. “We don’t trust the Iranians either.”

Frankly this is character assassination. There was nothing of value in that statement that warranted anonymity. Earlier in the article, the reporter, Glenn Kessler wrote:

Ross is undertaking this assignment amid questions in Washington about whether he has sufficient clout in the nascent Obama administration. And in the Middle East, many officials view him as too pro-Israel, raising concerns about whether he is the right person for the job of coaxing the Islamic Republic of Iran.

and

Ross’s most visible action thus far was a trip to the Persian Gulf in late April to reassure anxious Arab officials that the United States would not cut a deal with Iran and abandon them. Many Arab officials are skeptical of Ross because of the perception that he tilted heavily toward Israel during the Clinton years.

The only reason to quote the anonymous official was to confirm a point that was already presented as common knowledge and give some weight to the “pro-Israel charge.” But to argue that Ross is pro-Israel, isn’t accurate either. Yes Kessler quotes Aaron David Miller to that effect.

Even a former colleague, Aaron David Miller, wrote last year that “Dennis, like myself, had an inherent tendency to see the world of Arab-Israeli politics first from Israel’s vantage point.” Ross has written that his admiration for Israel has not hurt his effectiveness as a negotiator.

Of the four notorious “Baker Boys” – Ross, Miller, Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer – Ross may be the least anti-Israel, but to claim that he’s pro-Israel isn’t borne out by what happened. Here’s Danielle Pletka summarizing from Ross’s book:

The PLO’s terrorist acts should have brought an immediate end to U.S. assistance, but instead they brought Ross to Capitol Hill in an effort to control the damage. An unlikely advocate for the PLO, Ross tried in numerous closed briefings to put the Palestinians’ actions in context, explaining that while Arafat was head of the PLO, he wasn’t directly involved in terrorism, and noting that the Palestinian Authority had condemned the atrocities. After years of this painful exercise, which was greeted with increasing bipartisan skepticism, Ross abandoned Hill briefings.

To be fair, Ross’s aim was to draw the Palestinians closer to an agreement with Israel that would, theoretically, obviate the need for suicide bombers, rocket attacks and snipers. In turn, the Israeli crackdowns and closures that resulted from Palestinian violations of their commitments made U.S. aid more critical to keeping the process going — or so it was argued.

But the process had become a trap, and to perpetuate it, the Clinton administration needed to obfuscate the truth about Palestinian violations of U.S. law. The more it fudged, the more difficult it became to deliver a credible message about the perils of terrorism to the Palestinians. As Ross noted in “The Missing Peace,” his memoir of those years: “Too often we shied away from putting the onus on one side or the other because we feared we would disrupt a process that had great promise.” But the Clinton officials didn’t just shy away, they covered up: “The security breaches, especially the releases from jail of those involved in terrorist activities, were handled in private for fear of giving those in the U.S. Congress and in Israel who sought to break ties with the PLO a basis on which to do so,” he wrote.

Think about that. Ross, by his own admission, covered for PLO terrorism against Israel and yet the Washington Post – in a news story no less – labels him “pro-Israel.”

Kessler describes Ross in the opening paragraph like this:

Diplomatic troubleshooter Dennis Ross is a legendary talker, a specialist in developing peace processes — long ones. For 12 years, in the first Bush presidency and both terms of the Clinton presidency, he was at the center of the seemingly endless effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ross isn’t pro-Israel. I don’t for certain that he’s anti-Israel. However he is, first and foremost, a peace processor. I suppose that is an area expertise sort of one who keeps on quitting smoking. But does he have any success to show for his years of peace processing? It isn’t as Kessler intimates that he prolonged the peace process, it’s that the conditions for peace didn’t exist. Ross’s own actions, covering for Arafat, confirm that.

And yet the Post suggests that Ross’s biggest weakness is that he’s pro-Israel and subjects to a scrutiny its reporters never applied to Chaz Freeman, who actually worked directly for Saudi money. The Post’s reporting on the two shows a remarkable tendency towards trying to confirm the “Israel lobby” thesis.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | 1 Comment

What the Obama speech really said

Posted on 06/09/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Here, I think, is the simplest example of what Obama’s Cairo speech did to Israel.

Posted in Evil Meryl, Israel, The One | 1 Comment

More Cairo dividends: Hamas says pressure Israel

Posted on 06/09/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Hamas refuses to disarm, refuses to stop terror, refuses to renounce “resistance,” refuses to recognize Israel, and still maintains its anti-Semitic and Israel-denying charter, but Hamas is stepping up to applaud the U.S. for pressuring Israel, and calls for even more pressure on Israel.

Leader Khaled Mashaal’s endorsement of Obama’s push also included an appeal for the international community to consider Hamas a “positive element” in the search for Middle East peace.

“There is a new language from President Obama, but we expect real pressure on Israelis,” Mashaal said. “There are demands Israel stop the settlements but this is not the price we are after … Although it’s an essential step.”

[…] “Hamas would be a positive element in helping with a solution that is fair to the Palestinian people and enables them to realize their rights,” Mashaal said. “Hamas will not be an obstacle. Everyone knows that the obstacle is Israel.”

Because, yes, Hamas is not the obstacle. The rockets raining down on Israel? Well, they’ve stopped, haven’t they? Terror attack? Gee, that wasn’t Hamas. You see, the problem is Israeli settlements.

The sharks smell blood in the water. Way to go, Obama! You’ve taught them the language of the blame-Israel crowd.

Posted in Hamas, The One | Comments Off on More Cairo dividends: Hamas says pressure Israel

The studiously avoided refugees

Posted on 06/09/2009 by Soccerdad

In his speech in Cairo last week President Obama referred to himself as a “student of history.” A number of writers have pointed out that there’s a dimension of the Middle East’s history that the President failed to mention.

A half year ago Reut Cohen wrote:

My paternal grandfather vividly recalls his experiences living as a Jew in Baghdad and the Farhud pogrom, which was a Nazi pogrom coordinated by Haj Amin al-Husseini. In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Nearly 300 Jews were killed and more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, and hundreds of Jewish-owned shops were robbed and destroyed. My older family members recall witnessing how Iraqi soldiers pulled small children away from their parents and ripped the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets; pregnant women were raped and their stomachs cut open. My grandfather hid his baby brother underneath his t-shirt when the violence began and ran home. My great-grandfather saved his entire family during the riots that broke out in Baghdad by claiming to be a Muslim when Iraqi troops came into their home with the intent of looting, raping, and killing. Eventually, when being a Jew was practically criminalized, my father’s family escaped to Israel with only the clothes on their backs — their belongings were confiscated — leaving behind everything that they knew. Their experience was not a unique one and was shared by several thousand Baghdadi Jews.

Other Islamic countries treated their Jewish populations similarly. My maternal grandmother escaped from Syria during the mid-1940s. Her parents had died and she was forced to live with an older sister. As a 16-year-old girl, she decided to pay a Druze man with the gold her mother left to her and made the long, tedious journey to modern-day Israel. Because Syrian officials would incarcerate any Jew fleeing in the direction of Israel, my grandmother and other individuals making their way from Syria to what eventually became Israel would only be able to walk at night. Several Syrian Jews found it nearly impossible to flee. The last few Jews from Syria made their escape in the early 1990s. Our male relatives who arrived in Israel in the 1990s shared their stories with us. They were taken by Syrian authorities and tortured for unspecified amounts of time, experiencing unspeakable cruelty at the hands of Syrian officials.


Daniel Dagan writes (h/t Crossing the Rubicon):

For much too long Israel has been portrayed as a project of Western immigrants who seized a foreign country in the Orient and drove out its population. Yet I am an Israeli, and I come from the Orient. So I know for sure that I don’t fit this routine story – and I am certainly not alone. Nearly half the Jewish population in Israel are refugees from Arab or Muslim countries. Considering their plight is an indispensable part of any debate on promoting accommodation between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Arabs and Israelis.

Andre Aciman, in a similar vein writes:

With all his references to the history of Islam and to its (questionable) “proud tradition of tolerance” of other faiths, Mr. Obama never said anything about those Jews whose ancestors had been living in Arab lands long before the advent of Islam but were its first victims once rampant nationalism swept over the Arab world.

Nor did he bother to mention that with this flight and expulsion, Jewish assets were — let’s call it by its proper name — looted. Mr. Obama never mentioned the belongings I still own in Egypt and will never recover. My mother’s house, my father’s factory, our life in Egypt, our friends, our books, our cars, my bicycle. We are, each one of us, not just defined by the arrangement of protein molecules in our cells, but also by the things we call our own. Take away our things and something in us dies. Losing his wealth, his home, the life he had built, killed my father. He didn’t die right away; it took four decades of exile to finish him off.

Yaacov Lozowick comments:

Still, it’s worth noting the many things Obama got wrong, not to denigrate him but to retain clarity. While I certainly hope Obama’s aspirations materialize, pretending history didn’t happen is a fine tactic for a speech, but a poor strategy for changing things.

By juxtaposing the mention of the Holocaust with his mention of the Palestinians, President Obama effectively endorsed the view that Israel was founded as a response to the Holocaust. The Arab world has little problem with this. Their approach, in general, is “the Holocaust was European crime, why should the Palestinians suffer?”

So instead of encouraging reconciliation the President’s approach more likely perpetuated the grievances.

Mentioning the Jewish refugees would have accomplished two things. The first, is that it would have served as a reminder that Israel serves as a refuge to all Jews whose hosts no longer want them. Jews in Arab and Muslim lands have suffered depredations; the population of those countries are just as responsible for the creation of a Jewish homeland as are the Europeans. (And yes, it still goes on today.)

And given the integration of Oriental Jews into Israel, also shows that self determination need not be the responsibility of others. President Obama clearly stated that he held Israel responsible for the failure of the Palestinians to have a country of their own. But this absolves their leadership from its own failures to create the institutions of civil society. The contrast in the treatment of Jewish refugees and Arab refugees from 1948 is stark, and the President would have done well to mention it. After all he’s the one who called for “honesty” even if it’s inconvenient.

(h/t Crossing the Rubicon)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Jews | Tagged | 1 Comment

Mending fences, Middle East style

Posted on 06/09/2009 by Soccerdad

When (then-)Crown Prince Abdullah wished to repair the image of Saudi Arabia – 15 of whose nationals had been involved in the worst terrorist act on American soil – in American eyes, he invited Thomas Friedman to Riyadh (Friedman, a Jew, could not go to Mecca) and offered “a peace plan.” Friedman wrote:

Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?

I am currently in Saudi Arabia on a visit — part of the Saudi opening to try to explain themselves better to the world in light of the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. So I took the opportunity of a dinner with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, and de facto ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, to try out the idea of this Arab League proposal. I knew that Jordan, Morocco and some key Arab League officials had been talking about this idea in private but had not dared to broach it publicly until one of the ”big boys” — Saudi Arabia or Egypt — took the lead.

Abdullah responded with “you took the words right of my desk,” and the Saudi peace plan ultimatum was born.

And so in March, 2002, in Syrian occupied Beirut, Abdullah said:

The peace process is based on a clear principle: land for peace. This principle is accepted by the international community as a whole, and is embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and was adopted by the Madrid Conference in 1991. It was confirmed by the resolutions of the European Community and other regional organizations, and re-emphasized once more this month by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397.

My esteemed brethren, it is clear in our minds, and in the minds of our brethren in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, that the only acceptable objective of the peace process is the full Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Al Quds Al Sharif (East Jerusalem) as its capital, and the return of refugees.

So in order to mend fences with the United States, Abdullah called on Israel to end the occupation in exchange for nebulous promises of normalization.

Last week in his landmark address to the Arab World, President Obama said:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

And in order to repair America’s image in the Arab world, he, too argues that Israel must end the occupation. To be fair, the President was a little more specific about Arab responsibilities towards Israel than Abdullah was, but not by much.

In the end to both Abdullah and President Obama, it seems, the way to improve the Arab image in American eyes and the American image in Arab eyes is to put pressure on Israel. But the Arab or Muslim conflict with the West did not start or end with 9/11. And while the President feels that he was very clear that there are obligations on both sides despite the media’s emphasis, I believe it’s reasonable clear (see where the applause lines are in the speech) that his audience – across the Arab and Muslim worlds – only heard “settlements” and “occupation.” The calls for tolerance and reform, I believe, went largely unheeded.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | Comments Off on Mending fences, Middle East style

God, I hate the AP

Posted on 06/08/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Ten terrorists tried to use horses booby-trapped with explosives to attack from the Gaza border and possibly kidnap some Israeli soldiers. Let’s take a look at how this attack was portrayed in the Israeli media.

An Israel Defense Forces’ investigation into a major terror attack thwarted Monday morning south of the Karni crossing in the Gaza Strip revealed that the gunmen, believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, arrived at the crossing with several trucks and at least five horses loaded with explosive devices and mines.

According to the army, it is possible that the gunmen had planned to kidnap a soldier.

[…] About 10 to 12 terrorists took the horses off the truck and began planting the devices near the fence. At this stage, they were spotted by an IDF force and began firing at soldiers from Golani’s 13th Regiment.

The troops fired back, and the terrorists tried to escape and return the horses into the truck. At least four gunmen were killed in the battle.

Pretty straightforward. So what’s AP’s take?

4 Palestinians with explosives-laden horses killed
Gaza militants with explosives-laden horses approached the Israeli border early Monday, igniting a battle that left four gunmen dead, Israeli and Palestinian officials said.

Note how the headline, once again, does not use the words “militant” or “gunmen.” It’s yet another example of subtle bias—look, the mean, mean Israelis not only are killing Palestinians, but now they’re killing horses, too!

And not the phrase “approached the Israeli border.” Oh, they were just wandering up to the fence to have a look on the other side, were they? Well, according to the AP, yes. From a photo caption:

A group of around 10 gunmen were trying to cross the border fence into Israel when they were spotted by troops, according to Palestinian security officials.

They were not “trying to cross the border.” They were trying to murder Israelis.

A gun battle erupted when gunmen, under cover of early morning fog, fired at an Israeli patrol near the Karni crossing on the Israeli side of the border, the Israeli military said.

At least the Reuters headline isn’t as ridiculous as the AP’s:

Israelis kill three gunmen, horse on Gaza border

Oh, wait. Yes it is. How critical is it to the story that the horse be part of the headline? Why isn’t the headline “Palestinians attack IDF with booby-trapped horses”?

Of course we know the answer to that. Because that would mean that the Palestinians are not the innocent victims of Israeli aggression that the media narrative has been portraying these many years.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Gaza, Media Bias, Terrorism | 2 Comments

Abbas the obstacle

Posted on 06/08/2009 by Soccerdad

I was surprised by two opinion pieces over the weekend. One was by Thomas Friedman, After Cairo, it’ Clinton Time. I assumed that Friedman was going to write how Secretary of State Clinton now had to pressure Israel. In fact the focus of the essay was how Secretary Clinton’s main job was assuring democracy in Iraq. More surprising was what Friedman wrote about Israel and the Palestinians.

No, not that peace process — not the one between Israelis and Palestinians. That one’s probably beyond diplomacy.

And the Washington Post in an editorial The Settlement Rift:

The problem is that no Israeli government — not Mr. Netanyahu’s, not even one led by the current opposition — is likely to agree to a total construction ban. By insisting on one, the administration risks bogging itself down in a major dispute with its ally, while giving Arab governments and Palestinians a ready excuse not to make their own concessions. Meanwhile, the practical need for a total settlement freeze is debatable. Palestinian negotiators have already conceded that many of the towns will be annexed to Israel in any final deal; so did former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

While I don’t agree with all aspects of the editorial, it’s clear that the Post’s editors are critical of the administration’s efforts to pick a diplomatic fight with Israel. But that stance along with Friedman’s acknowledgement that diplomacy might not work between Israel and the Palestinians, makes me wonder if Abbas’s performance in Washngton has made people realize that the problems in the Middle East are not the fault of Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | Comments Off on Abbas the obstacle

Hezbollah loses (for now)

Posted on 06/08/2009 by Soccerdad

Tony Badran has a complete roundup of the results of the Lebanese election. It features of names that I’m unfamiliar with, but will be of interest with those who have a detailed knowledge of Lebanese politics. This is from his conclusion:

This balance of power will now be transferred to the battle over the cabinet formation. M14 has a clear victory, and so will pick the Prime Minister. The battle, however, will be over the heresy of the “veto third” — which has no existence in the constitution or the Taef Accord. Hariri has been consistently rejecting its continuation in the future cabinet, and he got support today from Jumblat as well, who called it a “fallacy.” M14 will agree to a national unity government, though its principled position now is that it rejects the “veto third” formula. They are making plenty of noise about giving a boost to Suleiman, and how that will materialize remains to be seen. M8 is almost certainly going to reject it and will cite the relatively weak performance of the so-called independents/centrists as support for their position.

via Barry Rubin who writes:

Whatever the result, Hizballah and its allies, including Iran and Syria, will keep up the pressure on the moderate regime, and this could mean crises ahead. One result could be that an attack on Israel from Lebanon is less likely, at least over the next year, as Hizballah and its allies don’t want to disrupt their efforts to bring Lebanon closer to their control. I hate to say this but political assassination–or at least attempts–and other terrorism could continue to be a method of intimidation.

The West is going to be challenged to provide support for the March 14 coalition government.

Legal Insurrection posts some pictures (via Instapundit).

The New York Times reports:

The tentative victory may have been aided by nearly unprecedented turnout. The preliminary results showed that about 55 percent of the 3.26 million registered voters cast ballots. Lebanese television reported that the March 14 coalition, a predominantly Sunni, Christian and Druze alliance, held at least 67 seats out of 128 in Parliament.

The Washington Post reports:

Heavy turnout in Christian districts returned to power a Western-backed coalition in the Lebanese parliament on Sunday, thwarting a bid by the Islamist Hezbollah party to increase its influence.

and

But the events of the past few years, voters said, made the campaign a broad referendum on Hezbollah. The group’s militia in 2008 briefly seized control of downtown Beirut in a bid to boost Hezbollah’s political power, a move reminiscent of the country’s 15-year civil war. And Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel was cited by some voters as showing the danger of allowing the group to keep its arms stockpiles.

In a statement to Agence France-Presse, Hezbollah member of parliament Hassan Fadlallah did not acknowledge the group’s defeat, but said it was important that Lebanon “turn a new page, one based on partnership, cooperation and understanding.”

I noted the emphasis on the heavy voting by Christians and wonder if it’s possible that President Obama’s Cairo speech had anything to do with the result. President Obama made it clear that he was reaching out to the Muslim/Arab world; did Lebanese Christians worry more about their future after that and thus vote in greater numbers than projected?

While this victory is good, in that it’s a setback for Iran and Syria, Hezbollah still remains a force.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Lebanon | Tagged | Comments Off on Hezbollah loses (for now)

Both sides not

Posted on 06/07/2009 by Soccerdad

I wish I had read this before I blogged about the Cairo speech. On Friday the Glenn Kessler and Jacqueline L. Salmon reported Using New Language, President Shows Understanding for Both Sides in Middle East in the Washington Post. But if you read the article, it doesn’t match the headline. It shows that the President showed understanding of the Arab/Muslim side in the Middle East. And it seems, at least from the sources interviewed, that it was deliberate.

In the report we read:

Yet he also seemed to draw an equivalence between Jewish and Palestinian suffering, noting “the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation.”

He said they were “two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive.”

For some hawkish Israelis, the comparison was too much. Aryeh Eldad, a member of parliament with the National Union party, decried what he called “a shocking parallel between the destruction of European Jewry and the suffering that the Arabs of Israel brought upon themselves when they declared war on Israel.”

“[S]eemed to draw?” The President didn’t seem to draw a parallel; he did it rather explicitly. He juxtaposed the discussion of the Holocaust and of the lack of the Palestinian homeland. One need not be a “hawkish Israeli” to find this objectionable. But apparently the juxtaposition is too subtle for reporters from the Washington Post. (Despite the President’s later denial of any comparison, given the amount of time and effort he put into writing it, I can’t believe that he didn’t intend it in his speech.)

Of course, this is the only Israeli voice quoted in the whole article. It’s the one view that the one the reporters dismiss. The rest of the voices (outside the administration) are those of Muslims.

The first, quoted by Obama as “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth,” is from Chapter 33, Verse 70, titled “Ahzab,” or “The Confederates,” and addresses the issue of those who are hypocritical in their faith and maintaining one’s faith in hard times. It was quoted by Muhammad in his final sermon before he died, and imams worldwide use it frequently in Friday sermons, said Jonathan Brown, a Muslim who is a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Washington.

When Obama used that verse, said Brown, “he wasn’t just quoting from the Koran, but he was doing what any Muslim preacher would do when speaking to an audience.”

Most striking to many Muslims was Obama’s use of the phrase “May peace be upon them” when referring to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It is a term of respect and reverence that Muslims use when referring, in speech or in writing, to such figures, and rarely is used by non-Muslims.

Well Jews do use the term “Alav ha-shalom” or “zichrono l’vracha,” though, admittedly we wouldn’t use those terms for Muhammad or Jesus. But again it shows that President Obama didn’t seek both sides, but only the Islamic side of the Middle East. Further we read:

Tariq Malhance, the president of the largest Muslim community center in Chicago, was invited to participate in one of the calls, and later he sent an e-mail to the White House urging Obama to “be mindful” that most Muslims around the world are not Arabs.

Almost two weeks ago, senior Obama advisers met with an even broader group of Muslim leaders at the White House, including activists and academics from across the political spectrum, according to participants. One of those at the meeting, University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, said the result was a speech that provided a far more specific description of Obama’s goals on a series of issues related to Muslims, Middle East peace and the Arab world.

“Now the pressure mounts, though, because expectations rise,” Telhami said. “Once you designate specific issues, people start looking for actions. This speech raises the stakes, and the pressure is going to mount to deliver something more than just a dialogue.”

Where was “both sides” in all these consultations as indicated by the title of the article? This was outreach to the Muslim world. But it was an exclusive outreach. It was a declaration of acceptance of the Arab narrative to the exclusion of the Israeli one.

So has the outreach borne fruit so far? Well Barry Rubin observes:

What is most surprising–at least for U.S. policymakers–comes from the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official newspaper, Al-Hayad al-Jadida, written by its veteran editor, Hafez al-Barghouti. Presumably, he would not write something like this if the PA wanted a different response. According to the MEMRI translation he said:

“We do not expect the new American president to express hostility towards Israel or to demand that it dismantle settlements… He will remain hostage to the American imperialist interests, which are in tandem with [those of] the Israeli occupation….”

This is pretty hostile coming right after the most pro-Palestinian speech ever made by a U.S. president and the visit of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to Washington, not to mention the fact that the PA is the largest beneficiary per capita of U.S. funds in history and faces no U.S. pressure to live up to its obligations.

Meryl notes that it hasn’t gotten any more cooperation from Saudi Arabia either.

Or as Jennifer Rubin neatly sums it up:

Did Hamas amend its charter when I wasn’t looking? Did the Saudis recognize the Jewish state? Oh, no. What exactly has the U.S. government done other than antagonize Israel and give Iran the green light to pursue its weapons program?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Politics | Tagged | Comments Off on Both sides not

More dividends of the Cairo speech

Posted on 06/07/2009 by Meryl Yourish

The Saudis are telling Obama to create peace by fiat.

Arab patience is wearing thin in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz told US President Barack Obama during their meeting in Riyadh last Wednesday. According to a report in Saudi daily al-Hayat, the Saudi leader urged Obama to become actively involved in the process, to the point of “imposing a solution” on the two sides “if necessary.”

Say, what was that about the Arab world having the same ideals and principles as America? That thing about democracy, and all that?

“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Really? The Saudis are interested in justice?

“We want from you a serious participation to solve the Palestinian issue and impose the solution if necessary,” the paper quoted the Saudi monarch as telling Obama.

Please note that when the Saudis say they want to solve “the Palestinian issue,” they’re not necessarily implying imposing a solution on both sides. Just on one. And they can lie with the best of them:

“We Arabs want to devote our time to building people, building a generation that is capable of handling the future through knowledge and action, we have a genuine desire for peace,” Abdullah said.

Yeah, pull the other leg.

Abdullah said that a solution of the conflict would be the “magic key” to all issues in the Middle East.

Okay, stop! You’re making my ribs hurt!

That “magic key” will fix:

  • The dismal human rights issues in Middle East countries
  • The religious wars between Sunni and Shia (and Muslims and non-Muslims)
  • The lack of suffrage
  • The raping and murdering of women who are deemed un-Islamic
  • The lack of education of girls in many Middle East nations
  • The lack of democracy in most Middle East nations
  • The war in Sudan
  • Terrorism and the spread of Islamism throughout the Middle East

Yep. A Palestinian state will solve all of the above. In Saudi Arabia LaLa Land. That’s probably the one that insists that Mohammed flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse (thus causing many of the current problems preventing peace in the region).

What I’d really like to know is: Do the Saudis truly intend to give up an Islamic waqf? Because I think not. I think their version of peace includes Jews unable to set foot on the Temple Mount, or near the Western Wall, once again.

Posted in Israel Derangement Syndrome, Saudi Arabia | 1 Comment

Beach Blanket Blog Carnival Time

Posted on 06/07/2009 by Jack

I don’t know about you but summer is easily my favorite time of year.  And even though I haven’t been in school in years I always get a bit restless waiting for it.

Fortunately we don’t have to wait any longer for the latest installment of Haveil Havalim, the weekly blog carnival of the Jewish/Israeli blogosphere. Click here and give it a read.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Beach Blanket Blog Carnival Time

SNN is up. I’m not.

Posted on 06/07/2009 by Meryl Yourish

This week’s Shire Network News is up, and you folks had better listen to it, because I stayed up way late last night getting it done.

I cover, of course, Obama’s Cairo speech.

Posted in Podcasts | 1 Comment